Lets talk about precedents...

[david austin]

Cause a pretty damn big one was just made.

Not sure if any of you have been following the Indiana State Pension fund arguments against the Chrysler sale and use of TARP funds but this little nugget was said today by the Obama admin

"The Obama Administration argued Monday that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to hear a challenge by Indiana benefit plans to the role the U.S. Treasury played in the Chrysler rescue, including the use of “bailout” (TARP) funds. The Indiana debt holders, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote, simply have no right to raise that issue, thus putting it out of the reach of the courts.

Although arguing that the courts may not rule on the validity of Treasury’s decision to shore up a new Chrysler company with funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the Solicitor General did argue that those funds may go to a troubled auto company, and not just to banks or other regular financial institutions."

Sooooo... not even the highest court gets to decide how and where the treasury and Obama burn our cash.

SWEET!

Oh how this will greatly affect the future investment in America.

[name change request]

what was their reason for why the supreme court can't hear the challenge?

and can you understand, objectively, their reasons for stating that?

[david austin]

The funds, it added, cannot show that four Justices will vote to hear their challenge on the TARP issue, which involves an issue of how to interpret the federal economic recovery law — an issue that neither the bankruptcy court nor the Second Circuit ruled upon because of the funds’ lack of standing If that is so, Kagan wrote, “no federal court has jurisdiction to decide the merits of the challenge.” Moreover, she said, the law is only eight months old, and has not been interpreted by any federal court, so that, too, would indicate it is not ready for the Supreme Court’s attention.

Easier read by... 'Stay out of the Obama juggernaut way'

[name change request]

Originally Posted by david austin

Easier read by... 'Stay out of the Obama juggernaut way'

or maybe you just like screaming that the sky is falling and there is actually a perfectly reasonable explanation that you're too blinded to see?

playing the devils advocate here

[matt]

total bs, but who is to say that the courts do not get involved regardless of what obamas camp says?

[name change request]

Obama camp ARGUED that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority... they didn't state a fact that they don't have the authority. So let's hear the rest of the argument about why they don't think the SC has the authority. Then let's hear an objective opinion from someone who doesn't predict that the end of the world is on our doorstep on the Obama Administration's opinion.

[matt]

well i think its total bs for them to say anything like that, but every administration is chalked full of idiots. until a supreme court justice says they cant interfere who cares.

[david austin]

Originally Posted by joel

or maybe you just like screaming that the sky is falling and there is actually a perfectly reasonable explanation that you're too blinded to see?

playing the devils advocate here

The precedent here is ability to secure investment both domestic and foreign.

This isnt about the sky falling lol... Look at the bigger picture and outcome from such a staunch opinion dealing with writing off any ability for a company to fight for its part of the pie through arbitrage.

As a lender would you choose to invest when if in the worst of economic conditions you could easily have no recourse... even with the highest of courts.

What I am getting at here is how the double edged sword can easily cut swaths of unintended circumstance.

[Sinner]

lets courts look at it would just slow it down which can not happen!

these companies need billions of dollars TODAY!!! or else we will all be out on the streets!!!11!!!

[david austin]

Originally Posted by joel

Obama camp ARGUED that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority... they didn't state a fact that they don't have the authority. So let's hear the rest of the argument about why they don't think the SC has the authority. Then let's hear an objective opinion from someone who doesn't predict that the end of the world is on our doorstep on the Obama Administration's opinion.

You need to read up on the case. I am not trying to be an ass at all but just google it. There are objective opinions all over the place.

Regardless of what actually happens with Chrysler its about the precedent and mindset being installed here.

[molecule]

i hope no one is surprised.

[Tyler Durden]

Originally Posted by molecule

i hope no one is surprised.

/me Puts on fake surprised look.

We're all gonna die!!!!!!!!1111!!!!

[name change request]

so the precedent you're talking about is the POTUS stating an opinion about the SC?

is this the story you're referring to?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/bu...r.html?_r=1&hp

[Deff Gordon]

supreme court blocked the sale to FIAT.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/...court_chrysler

[Tyler Durden]

Maybe they'll want to ban the sale of American companies to private industry. They're too big to fail and they can only survive with government help.